RABINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RABINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by a Municipal Magistrate under section 537 read with Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Premises No. 20b, Bhim Ghose Lane was considered by the Corporation of Calcutta to be in a dangerous condition. A notice was accordingly addressed to the owner under Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the Act. The owner was personally served. The notice required him to secure and repair the building within a stated date. A similar notice was affixed on a conspicuous part of the building. The petitioner not having shown cause against the notice nor complied with the requisition, a prosecution was started against him under section 537 for contravention of Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioner appeared before the Magistrate on the 19th April, 1960 and never appeared again. On that date he represented that the repair works were in progress and if time was allowed he would be able to carry out the requisition. The petitioner thereafter defaulted in appearing before the Magistrate who took evidence as to the actual service of notice upon him. A witness was examined who stated that the requisition had not been complied with. All this happened on the 1st. August, 1960. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to the 8th of August, when after hearing evidence the Magistrate made the order complained of. Even on the 8th of August the petitioner did not appear with the result that the Magistrate felt obliged to proceed with the trial in his absence, and held that the petitioner had contravened Rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII and accordingly convicted him under section 537 and sentenced him to pay the fine. A distress warrant was also directed to issue to realise the fine imposed.
(3.) THEREAFTER the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate on the 25th August and prayed for recalling the distress. He stated that he had carried out the requisition which involved him in an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 280/ -. The Magistrate recalled the distress and allowed him time to pay the fine. The petitioner took advantage of this respite and moved this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.